Astore empty weight & useful load

[ash31mi]

My weight and balance form shows a 416 Kg (~917 lb) empty weight and corresponding 184 Kg (~428 lb) useful load. 914 turbo, all the usual goodies. Is this typical for other Astores?

Just thinking... I weigh 170 lb  and full 29 gallons fuel is approx 174 lb. Have to put my passengers on a serious diet or only allow my young and light delightful granddaughters in the plane! Or fly with severely limited fuel.

[ChiMike]

Unlike the P2008, which is designed to a much higher weight capability than the LSA legal max and the Astore’s design spec, I’d suggest you live with less fuel. I’ve not seen a MTGW greater than 600kg published or even hinted at.

[montanapilot]

ChiMike - Do you think that the Astore was only designed for 1323 lbs. or do you think that it's just that it's the only category in which it's certified? When I bought my Astore, I grilled Shannon about the useful load issue, and you can guess what I was told - "it's certified in Europe for a higher weight". As we know, The P2008 is certified for a higher weight in Europe, but not the Astore. In fact, I once checked on Astores registered in Europe, and I don't even remember if I was able to find any, but lots of P2008's. I'd love to know what gross weight the Astore's really designed for. I'll bet it's more than 1323 lbs., but I don't think we'll ever know.

[TiPi]

600-416 = 184kg
Fuel: 110lt = 79kg
"Useful" load with full fuel: 105kg = very expensive single-seater

My P92 Eaglet was 367kg and I put it on a diet (removed some surplus instruments and the wheel pants), now comes in at 363kg. I can take off with 2 adults, full fuel and some luggage and stay below the 600kg max.

Any LSA aircraft that is heavier than 350-360kg will have limitations on fuel or passenger weight to stay below the legal 600kg.

[ChiMike]

Montana, unlike the P2008–which has had data and performance charts for 650 and even 700 kg MTGW, I’ve never seen anything for either the 2002 or Astore for performance beyond 600kg.

As to what Shannon may have said, I’ll not dispute him but I’ve not seen anything that corroborates it.

[montanapilot]

Thanks, ChiMike. With all due respect to Shannon, I do disupte his statement and attribute it to overzealous salesmanship. I've also done a ton of research and I cannot find anywhere where the Astore is certified for anything more than 600kg. As I noted in an earlier post, I searched European records for Astores, and as I remember, I found plenty of 2008's but no Astores. That makes sense since mine was built 3 years into production and it's only number 60, and that's probably how many there are in the U.S.. My guess is that they intended the airplane only for the U.S. market and so never pursued certification at a higher weight anywhere else. I'd still bet dollars to donuts that when they designed it, they designed it for a higher weight. However, unless somebody pulls a Watergate at Tecnam headquarters, we'll never know.

[Glenn]

The dirty little secret in the LSA fleet is operating heavier than 1320 pounds. 
None of us weigh 100 pounds or takeoff with only 120 minutes of fuel.
We all hope that one day the arbitrary 600 kilogram limit will be increased.

[ChiMike]

Glenn, that may be the case with some even most LSA pilots and aircraft, and may be even rational for a Tecnam given design, engineering, and quality of construction; but is it a good thing for other aircraft?

Design specifications vs 1320 lbs is one thing—but a lot of LSA’s are designed TO 1320 as a way of keeping costs down.

[montanapilot]

No question that Glenn's right on, and the secret might not even be "dirty". When I picked up my airplane, I saw lots of flights made in Astores with 2 large guys, and I doubt that anybody was paying attention to keeping the fuel load down. Most likely topping off before flight.

Re ChiMike's comments, I think it's a great question. Clearly, lots of LSA's are indeed designed to keep the weight down. I would have to think that an airplane with an empty weight of 900+ lbs. is built much stouter than one that weighs in the 700's. Maybe it's just heavier material that really doesn't contribute to load bearing capability, but surely some of it is in heavier wing spars, carry-through center sections, thicker wing, horizontal stab and vertical fin structures, etc. I think the statement "is it a good thing for other aircraft" is right on. There are several aircraft that I test flew before I bought my Astore that weigh way less, are clearly not as substantial, and that I would never want to go over the certified gross.

[Glenn]

Apr 28, 2019 16:08:45 GMT montanapilot said:

Clearly, lots of LSA's are indeed designed to keep the weight down... There are several aircraft that I test flew before I bought my Astore that weigh way less, are clearly not as substantial, and that I would never want to go over the certified gross.

Agreed.  I won't name them for obvious reasons.  My butt will never be in one of them again. 

Construction material stength aside, most flew like crap and stability just plain sucked.

When I get a call to requesting a flight review, the first question I ask is what airplane are we going to fly.

[Glenn]

Apr 28, 2019 15:53:00 GMT ChiMike said:

Glenn, that may be the case with some even most LSA pilots and aircraft, and may be even rational for a Tecnam given design, engineering, and quality of construction; but is it a good thing for other aircraft?

Design specifications vs 1320 lbs is one thing—but a lot of LSA’s are designed TO 1320 as a way of keeping costs down.

Nope, it's never a "good thing" to deviate from FARs, the POH, or ASTM standards.  


Normalization of Deviance:

Social normalization of deviance means that people become so accustomed to a deviant behaviour that they no longer consider it as deviant, despite the fact that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety. – Diane Vaughan

[ash31mi]

Apr 28, 2019 14:34:30 GMT montanapilot said:

...mine was built 3 years into production and it's only number 60..

#67 is being delivered new to another Arizona pilot in June.

Probably like other prospective purchasers, I was lulled into assuming that the useful load was adequate after a demo flight with close to full fuel and a demo pilot who didn't look any lighter than my 170lb. I failed to ask the right questions or do my own research. My fault. Weight limitations haven't been a significant issue with the other aircraft I have owned.

Not a total deal-killer because most of my flights are solo and relatively local just for fun, but I don't want to deviate from FARs and the POH and it really got my attention when planning a 1,300 mile x-c trip which would have been fun with a second pilot. Now I'll just do it alone.

[ChiMike]

I don’t mind stopping often for fuel: I usually need a bio break!

[ash31mi]

Apr 28, 2019 21:40:56 GMT ChiMike said:

...I usually need a bio break!...

Me too, although each stop can cost an hour or more when factoring in descent and climb time. Competition gliders normally have a pee-tube which, together with additional plumbing apparatus can take care of the inevitable on 5 hour+ flights despite the scrunched seating position and parachute straps getting in the way; not so appropriate in a side-by-side 2-seater, but I have plans for that....!

[montanapilot]

Next to GPS, the greatest invention in aviation is the H.E.R.E. - Human Element Range Extender. I've even used it in my Pitts. On long cross countries, I rarely fly less than 3 hours - no problem.